search_tweets

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses the 7-day lookback, retweet exclusion, and returned fields (text, author, engagement metrics, URLs). It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent enough for selection.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: the headline purpose comes first, followed by essential scope and result details. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given two simple parameters, a full output schema, and a clear sibling context, the description adequately covers the tool's scope and result content. It could note ordering or pagination, but those are not critical for correctly selecting and invoking this search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with query and max_results fully described including examples and default ranges. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Search recent tweets by keyword or phrase') and further narrows scope with the 7-day window and exclusion of retweets, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_timeline, get_mentions, and get_tweet.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states the search covers the last 7 days of public tweets and excludes retweets, giving useful context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-search cases, but the keyword-search purpose is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.